What is the average number of publications for a med school applicant?

[fritolays08]

And does having publications on your resume, even if you are not a main author, mean anything?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[kami333]

And does having publications on your resume, even if you are not a main author, mean anything?

The average: 0

And yes, even if you aren't the first or last author it's meaningful but that also means that you need to be able to explain the paper and implications as well.

 

[MilMD01]

Agreed ^.

 

[Ismet]

I don't know of an average, but considering the number of people who either have never done research or haven't done research long enough to get a publication, I'd estimate the average to be less than 1. I'd be interested to see if there's actual statistics on that, though.

Having any type of publication, be it 1st author, 6th author, an abstract, etc, means something, but the weight of that something depends on what # author you are as well as the strength of the journal it's published in. Very very very few pre-meds are able to get first or second author on anything, and often you can get listed as a mid-line author just for some data analysis you contributed to the project.

A publication is a beneficial addition to your application, but it's certainly not necessary. What is more beneficial is being able to explain your research and your role in it once you get to interviews to show that you were interested and engaged in the research project, not just in it for the resume building or for a pub.

 

[cookiemonsters]

I think publications are probably nice to have, but I don't think medical schools care that much about research. A senior capstone project or a year of scutwork is probably enough. Just pretend to know all the details about what you worked on for interviews.

But if you can get your name published into a good journal, I think that will help tremendously come residency applications.

 

[Ismet]

I think publications are probably nice to have, but I don't think medical schools care that much about research. A senior capstone project or a year of scutwork is probably enough. Just pretend to know all the details about what you worked on for interviews.

Lol. 1. Many of the top schools highly value research experience. It's not required, but highly recommended if at all possible, especially because many schools have required research projects. 2. An interviewer can usually see through someone "pretending" to know the details of research.

But if you can get your name published into a good journal, I think that will help tremendously come residency applications.

No, not tremendously. You can stick it on ERAS, but everything you do in med school is much more important than undergrad stuff.

 

[cookiemonsters]

Lol. 1. Many of the top schools highly value research experience. It's not required, but highly recommended if at all possible, especially because many schools have required research projects. 2. An interviewer can usually see through someone "pretending" to know the details of research.

No, not tremendously. You can stick it on ERAS, but everything you do in med school is much more important than undergrad stuff.

The overwhelming feeling I got from my interviews and overall cycle was that MD programs care much much more about your other ECs (clinical experience and community involvement/service) than they care about research... it's a silent requirement, but it has diminishing returns past a certain point, IE a capstone or a year of full-time lab work. Just the places I applied MD/PhD made a big deal of my research work.

And we'll agree to disagree that publications from before medical school don't help with residency applications. I have been told straight-up by current residents that publications from their gap years were commented on positively during their residency interviews.

 

[Cynicalbrit]

I say this as someone with 5 publications in 10+ impact factor journals, probably about 20 abstracts, posters, etc. The overwhelming feeling I got from my interviews and overall cycle was that MD programs care much much more about your other ECs (clinical experience and community involvement/service) than they care about research... it's a silent requirement, but it has diminishing returns past a certain point, IE a capstone or a year of full-time lab work. Just the places I applied MD/PhD made a big deal of my research work.

And we'll agree to disagree that publications from before medical school don't help with residency applications. I have been told straight-up by current residents that publications from their gap years were commented on positively during their residency interviews.

I'm not entirely sure I believe you. If what is you say is indeed true, then I would have to assume that the MD schools to which you applied were not very research-focused. According to a lot of other people on this site, "tell me about your research" is one of the most common interview questions they're asked, and they haven't had multiple first author papers in 10+IF journals per year as an undergrad. Also, I find it hard to believe that schools like Harvard, at which more than 97% of matriculants have research experience, don't care much about research.

With regard to your residency point, I think there's a big difference between "commented on positively" and "helped tremendously."

P.S. - I would be very interested to see your MDApps, if you're willing to share.

 

[Ismet]

I say this as someone with 5 publications in 10+ impact factor journals, probably about 20 abstracts, posters, etc. The overwhelming feeling I got from my interviews and overall cycle was that MD programs care much much more about your other ECs (clinical experience and community involvement/service) than they care about research... it's a silent requirement, but it has diminishing returns past a certain point, IE a capstone or a year of full-time lab work. Just the places I applied MD/PhD made a big deal of my research work.

And we'll agree to disagree that publications from before medical school don't help with residency applications. I have been told straight-up by current residents that publications from their gap years were commented on positively during their residency interviews.

Your first post was extremely hyperbolic, which is what I had a problem with, and you corrected it a bit with your reply. I'm not sure where you applied, but I interviewed applicants this year, and a large part of each interview was spent listening to the candidate describe their research. I could tell when someone had an active, engaging role in research and when someone just did the minimal scutwork because they thought they had to. The latter is a red flag to me. It is something we can specifically address on our interview evaluation. And coming from a med school with a required scholarly research project and the majority (but not all) of my classmates having done research, it is not something that's glossed over. Obviously it's not the most important factor, as there are people in my class without research experience, but the school definitely values research experience (along with clinical exp, etc).
EDIT to add: When I was interviewing at my school a year ago, 3/4 of the time in my faculty interview was spent discussing my research.

Also, I said that undergrad research would not help "tremendously" in residency applications, because what you accomplish in medical school is much more important. I didn't say it wouldn't be beneficial, as it is certainly impressive to be published as an undergrad, but as the above poster said, there's a difference between getting positive comments and being a tremendous addition to your application.

 

[phunky]

The mode is probably 0. The mean is probably less than 1.

 

[fritolays08]

What about publications that are less research oriented and more clinical-study based? Like data collection on human subjects or helping with certain disease outbreaks?

 

[sinombre]

What about publications that are less research oriented and more clinical-study based? Like data collection on human subjects or helping with certain disease outbreaks?

Any kind of scientific publication will look good to medical schools. Also, clinical research is definitely not "less research oriented." It's distinct from bench research, but it's definitely research.

 

[image187]

Your first post was extremely hyperbolic, which is what I had a problem with, and you corrected it a bit with your reply. I'm not sure where you applied, but I interviewed applicants this year, and a large part of each interview was spent listening to the candidate describe their research. I could tell when someone had an active, engaging role in research and when someone just did the minimal scutwork because they thought they had to. The latter is a red flag to me. It is something we can specifically address on our interview evaluation. And coming from a med school with a required scholarly research project and the majority (but not all) of my classmates having done research, it is not something that's glossed over. Obviously it's not the most important factor, as there are people in my class without research experience, but the school definitely values research experience (along with clinical exp, etc).

Also, I said that undergrad research would not help "tremendously" in residency applications, because what you accomplish in medical school is much more important. I didn't say it wouldn't be beneficial, as it is certainly impressive to be published as an undergrad, but as the above poster said, there's a difference between getting positive comments and being a tremendous addition to your application.

A student interviewer myself, I don't focus much on research but rather the person's interpersonal skills and ability to mesh with the culture of our school. Of course, if someone has a really fascinating research experience it's fun to chat about their experience and their role and all, but I don't see the point in trying to look for red flags or holes in their application. As a first year medical student you're hardly qualified to be judging the academic credentials of applicants or commenting on the validity of their roles in research projects. Any evalualation you put forth about that person is probably worth about 1% of the adcoms assessment anyway.

As far as the ERAS, when applying for residencies you need to submit a CV with content comprehensive yet pertinent to whatever position you're applying for (as with any CV). Things like research in undergrad and previous jobs (if medically related) are perfectly fine and actually desirable for your application and DO matter. One ortho resident I was chatting with told me during his interviews they seemed to like to talk about his research from his college career more than his med school research. Research and publications certainly DO matter, including projects from undergrad especially if they're related to whatever you're applying for.

 

[Juan Solo]

The average is probably ZERO or 0.01

 

[fritolays08]

The average is probably ZERO or 0.01

Wow, it seems like the general consensus is that publications aren't that common, which is really surprising to me because I'm under the impression that med applicants with publications these days are a dime a dozen.

 

[Juan Solo]

Wow, it seems like the general consensus is that publications aren't that common, which is really surprising to me because I'm under the impression that med applicants with publications these days are a dime a dozen.

Research experience, yes. Publications, not as common as far as my personal experience goes.

 

[Daodejing]

Wow, it seems like the general consensus is that publications aren't that common, which is really surprising to me because I'm under the impression that med applicants with publications these days are a dime a dozen.

Your impression is probably based off of SDN. This sample cohort is by no means representative of the rest of the 45k+ people applying each year. Publishing is no easy feat, especially if you're dabbling in basic science, which most undergrads tend to do.

 

[chemsmith]

I say this as someone with 5 publications in 10+ impact factor journals, probably about 20 abstracts, posters, etc. The overwhelming feeling I got from my interviews and overall cycle was that MD programs care much much more about your other ECs (clinical experience and community involvement/service) than they care about research... it's a silent requirement, but it has diminishing returns past a certain point, IE a capstone or a year of full-time lab work. Just the places I applied MD/PhD made a big deal of my research work.

And we'll agree to disagree that publications from before medical school don't help with residency applications. I have been told straight-up by current residents that publications from their gap years were commented on positively during their residency interviews.

I was told the same thing by a residency director

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

Wow, it seems like the general consensus is that publications aren't that common, which is really surprising to me because I'm under the impression that med applicants with publications these days are a dime a dozen.

Stop using SDN to get an impression of the average med school applicant. People on here are not average. Also, most of the people on SDN who claim to have "publications" are really just referring to poster abstracts (often even just middle author poster abstracts) which are hardly real publications.

The reality is that even among accepted applicants to top tier MD/PhD programs (which are much more like PhD programs than MD programs when it comes to demand for research experience), only half have publications (or at least at WashU's MSTP that's the case according to their website). When it comes to straight MD programs, the number is much, much lower. LizzyM, an adcom member at a top 10 MD program, has put her estimate at less than 10% of applicants.

 

[Ismet]

A student interviewer myself, I don't focus much on research but rather the person's interpersonal skills and ability to mesh with the culture of our school. Of course, if someone has a really fascinating research experience it's fun to chat about their experience and their role and all, but I don't see the point in trying to look for red flags or holes in their application. As a first year medical student you're hardly qualified to be judging the academic credentials of applicants or commenting on the validity of their roles in research projects. Any evalualation you put forth about that person is probably worth about 1% of the adcoms assessment anyway.

As far as the ERAS, when applying for residencies you need to submit a CV with content comprehensive yet pertinent to whatever position you're applying for (as with any CV). Things like research in undergrad and previous jobs (if medically related) are perfectly fine and actually desirable for your application and DO matter. One ortho resident I was chatting with told me during his interviews they seemed to like to talk about his research from his college career more than his med school research. Research and publications certainly DO matter, including projects from undergrad especially if they're related to whatever you're applying for.

Actually, the student interview here is weighted equally with the faculty interview. Of course the main goal of the student interview is to evaluate how they communicate and how they might fit with the school, but we also have to report on their clinical and research experience, along with extracurricular activities/hobbies/etc, and it's a pretty substantial fraction of our evaluation. I'm not actively seeking out red flags or holes, that's more the job of the adcom/faculty interviewer who has an open file, but if someone comes off as obviously disingenuous, I can include that in my evaluation. Maybe your school does interviews differently, and maybe I'm not "qualified" to judge their credentials, but that is what we are asked to report, so that is what I do.

And again, I didn't say that undergrad research/pubs don't matter for residency. I was addressing what I perceived as exaggeration by the poster, nothing more. My goodness, people.

 

[as1212559]

The mode is probably 0. The mean is probably less than 1.

lol

 

[Daodejing]

The mode is probably 0. The mean is probably less than 1.

This post has a p<.05

 

[Pattycake25]

And does having publications on your resume, even if you are not a main author, mean anything?

The "average" matriculant won't have any, EXCEPT for top-tier schools, which heavily emphasize research. There, the average is at least 1, although I have no idea what it would actually be.

 

[1cor1311]

This post has a p<.05

Yes indeed, the average will be very close to 0. Applicants may have 1, rarely 2. But you will have those outliers (graduate students who decided they want to be medical doctors now and apply with 6 pubs)

 

[7ec13]

This post has a p<.05

That just made my day

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I don't know, but a lot of people on here assume that many people have publications more or less because they think publications are somehow easy to obtain. And admittedly I assumed that too to some extent, I thought if I work in my lab for a year I'd be sure to be intertwined in a project to the point that I'd get my name on something. But no, generally as an undergraduate you'll be getting publishings either from a senior thesis, capstone program that you've worked on since freshman year, or by having a family member that will write your name on research.

 

[Narmerguy]

I think that there are obviously diminishing returns with research, and a publication is highly unnecessary. While it can look good, some students get publications after just a summer of research, others a year. Meanwhile, some students do research for over 2 years with no publication. It's one of the many things out of a student's control, and you can demonstrate that you have an aptitude and passion for research without a pub.

I expect that the median is 0 and the mean is somewhere much closer to 0 than it is to 1. Even among SDN (a pretty crazy bunch), the vast majority of us don't have a single publication.